Recently Attorney Beatman has been filing motions trying to get information about the Goat’s financial records. The Goat’s attorneys have been objecting and stonewalling and asking for protective orders. The Goat’s attorneys have requested that all of the Goat’s financial information be sealed and not posted on the court website, on the grounds that the public release of such information would cause the Goat embarrassment. The Goat’s attorneys also claim that this information may fall into the hands of reporter and blogger reprobates Larry Noodles, Paul Bass and his cohort Chris Peak, who will publish it online and cause further humiliation to the Goat.
In response to the Goat motions, Attorney Beatman argued that the Goat is “the real cause of any unfavorable press that they receive because Defendants’ heinous conduct against a minor over the course of years is the basis for the reporting on the allegations and Judgment against Greer and the Yeshiva.” It is not often that such language is used in the stuffy Federal courthouse. I should hire Beatman to write some articles for my blog. I would suggest that in future court filings Beatman refer to Daniel Greer as “the Goat.”
Will the disclosure of financial information cause the Goat any more embarrassment than than the $21 million child rape verdict? Does the Goat find the pending criminal charges against him embarrassing? The Goat should demand that the State’s Attorney’s Office drop all charges because they are causing him public embarrassment. I wonder if the Goat found the public release of police reports describing the mole on his back embarrassing? Did the Goat find the public release of information about the way he removes his trousers (he pulls them over his wingtips) embarrassing? What about the public release of the size of his shmeckle (the size of an uncooked chickpea), the color of his pubic hair (red heifer), the color of his back hair (Borsalino black), the color of his chest hair (tzara’at white), or the three inch scar near his shmeckle (mohel malpractice)?
I cannot file a legal brief on behalf of Mr. Mirlis arguing that the Goat’s financial information be made publicly available. Mirlis already has an attorney. My law license is suspended. But the First Amendment allows legitimate news organizations, as well as renegade bloggers, to request that a Federal Judge make court documents publicly available. I don’t have to be a licensed attorney to make such as request. I thus prepared a letter addressed to the Honorable United States Federal Judge Michael Shea. In my letter I requested that the videotape deposition of Avi Hack be made publicly available. Attorney Ponvert is the only person who has a copy of this videotape. I requested that Ponvert release it to me but he never replied to my email. Larry Noodles gets no respect.
In my letter to Judge Shea I also requested that the Goat’s financial documents be made publicly available. I cited case law and statutes. I made legal arguments. I guess you could say that I was practicing law without a license. But my client is Larry Noodles. I don’t think Larry Noodles will ever sue me or report me to the authorities, but you never know, you just can’t trust anyone these days.
After I sent my letter I did not hear back from Judge Shea for a number of weeks. Yesterday Judge Shea posted court orders that addressed my letter. Judge Shea scheduled a hearing for December 7th. Judge Shea did not post my letter on the court website. Judge Shea wanted the court record to be “free of non-pertinent factual material or ad hominem attacks.” Apparently, ad hominem attacks are only allowed on blogs but not allowed in court filings. Nobody ever taught me that in law school. Had I known I would have toned down my letter, in deference and respect for the United States Federal District Court, not out of any respect for the depraved Goat.
Judge Shea sent copies of my letter to all the attorneys involved in the case. In response, the Goat’s attorney David Grudberg filed a Motion to extend the December 7th hearing in order to give him more time to prepare a response to my letter. In his motion Grudberg took a swipe at me and stated: “Mr. Dressler is a non-party, with no standing before the Court. The letter referred to in Docket Entry 235 is not limited to a simple records request; it is riddled with baseless personal attacks and accusations against defendants Greer and Yeshiva (consistent with Mr. Dressler’s admitted behavior for well over a year). If Mr. Dressler chooses to renew those attacks at the public hearing, defendants will be compelled to respond point-by-point.”
I would like to address these statements made by David Grudberg. Grudberg claims that I have no standing. Right now I am sitting at my computer, but I am willing to visit Mr. Grudberg at his law office and demonstrate that I am perfectly capable of standing. Upright on two feet, unlike his goat client.
In spite of Grudberg’s claim that I am not capable of standing, Judge Shea gave me the opportunity to appear at the court hearing and address the Court. I plan to attend the hearing. Does anyone have a leather briefcase and alligator skin wingtip shoes I can borrow? I want to look like a lawyer who works for one of those fancy Wall Street white shoe law firms, like the one that the Goat briefly worked at when he first got out of Yale Law School. The Goat didn’t last long on Wall Street as a lowly associate attorney. The Goat can never be at the bottom of the ladder and take orders from senior law partners. After all, the Goat is the Greatest Of All Time.
Here is a copy of the full text of Judge Shea’s Court orders:
NOTICE. The Court has received a letter dated November 24, 2017 from Lawrence Dressler. A copy of the letter will be sent to counsel for the parties. The letter requests that the Court make publicly available: (1) Daniel Greer’s financial documents, deposition(s) and related financial information obtained during post-judgment discovery; (2) the Yeshiva of New Haven’s financial documents, deposition(s) and related financial information obtained during post-judgment discovery; and (3) the videotape of the deposition of Aviad Hack. None of these items has been filed on the docket or none is otherwise in the Court’s possession (with one exception: see ECF No. 199, responses to post-judgment interrogatories filed in response to a court order). The basis for the request appears to be case law concerning publication of deposition testimony and other related court documents. See, e.g., Burgess v. Town of Wallingford, No. 3:11-CV-1129 CSH, 2012 WL 4344194, at *9 n. 17 (D. Conn. Sept. 21, 2012) (“Absent a protective order, ‘the discovery rulesplace no [specific] limitations on what a party may do with materials obtained during discovery.’23 Am.Jur.2d Depositions and Discovery § 167 (Westlaw update August 2012). Certain courts have thus posited that, ‘[a]t a minimum, the governing rules strongly suggest a philosophy which favors free access to discovery materials in the absence of countervailing considerations.’ Flaherty v. Seroussi,209 F.R.D. 295, 298 (N.D.N.Y.2001).”); United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (1995) (2d Cir. 1995) (discussing consideration of privacy interests in weighing right of access to court materials); Flake v. Arpaio, No. CV-15-01132-PHX-NVW, 2016 WL 4095831, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 2, 2016) (denying protective order barring dissemination of defendant’s deposition); but see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (discovery materials may not be filed in court until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing; provision introduced by 2000 amendment); see also Local Civil Rules 5(f), 30, 83.6. The letter also refers to a lawsuit that Mr. Greer filed against Mr. Dressler, quotes statements that Greer has made publicly in the past, and asserts that there is a public interest in releasing the materials listed above. The Court will hear input from the parties on this matter and. to a limited and reasonable extent, Mr. Dressler and counsel for Mr. Hack, at the oral argument scheduled for December 7th, 2017 at 2PM. Neither Mr. Dressler nor counsel for Mr. Hack is required to attend the hearing.
The clerk is hereby directed to mail a copy of this order to the following parties: (1) Lawrence Dressler, at the address listed on his letter; and (2) Steven J. Errante, who the Court understands to be counsel for Mr. Hack, at his law firm address (52 Trumbull St., New Haven, CT 06510).
Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 12/4/2017. (Self, A.) (Entered: 12/04/2017) 12/04/2017 Docket Entry Correction re 235 Order: The correct date for the oral argument is December 8, 2017 at 2pm; 450 Main St; Hartford, CT; Courtroom #2 (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 12/04/2017) 12/04/2017 236 MOTION for Leave to File Additional Exhibit (Exhibit G) by Daniel Greer, Yeshiva of New Haven, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit G)(Grudberg, David) (Entered: 12/04/2017) 12/04/2017237 ORDER. The clerk is hereby directed to mail a copy of the letter by Lawrence Dressler noted in the Court’s 235 order to Steven J. Errante, who the Court understands to be counsel for Mr. Hack, at his law firm address (52 Trumbull St., New Haven, CT 06510).
Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 12/4/2017. (Self, A.) (Entered: 12/04/2017) 12/05/2017238 ORDER. The 236 motion for leave to file is hereby GRANTED.
Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 12/5/2017. (Self, A.) (Entered: 12/05/2017) 12/05/2017 239 MOTION for Reconsideration re 235 Order,,,,,,,,,,, by Daniel Greer, Yeshiva of New Haven, Inc.. (Grudberg, David) (Entered: 12/05/2017) 12/05/2017240 ORDER. Upon consideration and given the amount of fully briefed motions that the court has to consider and potentially resolve at the previously scheduled December 8 hearing, the Court agrees that more time is needed for the parties to advise the Court of their positions with regard to the communication received from Mr. Dressler. Therefore, the Court hereby reschedules the hearing on Mr. Dressler’s request to order the release of the defendants’ financial information and the video deposition of Mr. Hack for January 8, 2018 at 2:30 P.M. If either the parties or counsel for Mr. Hack or Mr. Dressler wishes to file a legal brief addressing that issue, they may do so on or before 5 P.M. on January 2, 2018. Any such filing shall be limited to 8 double spaced pages and shall cite legal authority and shall be free of non-pertinent factual material or ad hominem attacks. Therefore, the 239 motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED.
The clerk is hereby directed to mail a copy of this order to Mr. Dressler and Mr. Errante at the addresses referenced in the Court’s 235 order.
Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 12/5/2017. (Self, A.) (Entered: 12/05/2017)